A claim for a computer
software related invention is usually drafted using the language of
general-function-defined object or means-plus-function. Regarding a
general-function-defined object claim, to be definite, the skilled
person in the art of the invention must be able to concretely imagine a
hardware component or software module in view of the common knowledge at
the time of filing for the function. Regarding a means
(step)-plus-function claim, if the specification fails to recite the
structure, material, operation corresponding to the function or computer
program algorithm or hardware component achieving the function, then it
will render the claim indefinite and cannot be supported by the
specification, and at the same time will fail to meet the enablement
requirement.

6.Features Having No Contribution To
Technical Nature

An invention under the
Patent Act must have a technical nature, specifically, the means of
solving the problems must involve the technical means of the technical
field.

An invention protects
the creation of technical ideas which utilize natural laws, and the
examination of its patentability is generally based on all the technical
features recited in the claims. Therefore, when examining the novelty
of the invention claims, any example of the prior art that discloses all
of the technical features recited in the claims will result in a lack of
novelty. However, because the applicant may recite technical features
that do not have a technical nature in the claims of a computer software
related invention, when examining the non-obviousness, one shall
consider whether the technical features that do not make a technical
nature have contributions to the one having a technical nature.

In a computer software
related invention, if a feature recited in a claim has a technical
nature, then the feature makes a contribution to the technical nature;
if the technical feature does not have a technical nature, then one
shall judge whether it contributes to the technical nature of the claim
after cooperating with a technical feature having the technical nature;
if the technical feature does not have a technical nature, and fails to
cooperate with a technical feature having the technical nature and thus,
does not belong to a part of the technical means which solves the
problems, then it shall be deemed as a utilization of prior art and can
be easily combined with other prior art.

Therefore, as
illustrated in the flow charts below, a claim partially recites a
feature having a technical nature (A: image processing device), and at
the same time partially recites the features having no technical nature
(B: ¡§mathematical formula¡¨ for the image processing device; C: business
method of ¡§distributing as a gift¡¨). In this situation, the claim
includes feature (A) having a technical nature, so the claim as a whole
meets the definition of an invention; however, when judging whether the
claim meets the requirement of non-obviousness, the examiner only needs
to compare ¡§the feature contributing in respect of the technical nature¡¨
¡V feature (A) having a technical nature, and feature (B) cooperating
with a technical feature having the technical nature and belonging to a
part of the technical means which solves the problems. The remaining
technical feature (C) ¡§having no contribution in respect of the
technical nature¡¨ shall be deemed as a utilization of the prior art and
can be easily combined with other prior arts.